Skip to Main Content
Table 3.

Evaluation of the modeling D5 results using the emission factors of McLachlan et al. (2010) against the field data from the different sampling sites (left, winter; right, summer). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00137.t3

WinterSummer
SiteSIP Mean (ng m–3)Model Mean (ng m–3)MB (ng m–3)NME (%)SIP Mean (ng m–3)Model Mean (ng m–3)MB (ng m–3)NME (%)
1. Outeiro (bg) 0.665 0.682 0.017 2.5 0.577 0.544 –0.033 5.7 
2. Braga (ur) 1.116 1.169 0.053 4.7 1.078 1.145 0.067 6.2 
3. Porto (ur) 0.974 0.976 0.002 0.2 1.403 2.250 0.847 60.4 
4. Esmoriz (bc) 0.864 0.581 –0.283 32.8 1.150 0.909 –0.241 20.9 
5. Estarreja (in) 0.506 0.584 0.078 15.4 0.604 0.741 0.137 22.6 
6. Z.I. Mota (in) 0.638 0.452 –0.186 29.1 1.813 1.378 –0.435 24.0 
7. Midões (bg) 0.169 0.489 0.320 189.3 0.108 0.356 0.248 229.6 
8. Praia da Luz (bc) 0.331 0.566 0.235 71.0 1.776 1.079 –0.697 39.2 
WinterSummer
SiteSIP Mean (ng m–3)Model Mean (ng m–3)MB (ng m–3)NME (%)SIP Mean (ng m–3)Model Mean (ng m–3)MB (ng m–3)NME (%)
1. Outeiro (bg) 0.665 0.682 0.017 2.5 0.577 0.544 –0.033 5.7 
2. Braga (ur) 1.116 1.169 0.053 4.7 1.078 1.145 0.067 6.2 
3. Porto (ur) 0.974 0.976 0.002 0.2 1.403 2.250 0.847 60.4 
4. Esmoriz (bc) 0.864 0.581 –0.283 32.8 1.150 0.909 –0.241 20.9 
5. Estarreja (in) 0.506 0.584 0.078 15.4 0.604 0.741 0.137 22.6 
6. Z.I. Mota (in) 0.638 0.452 –0.186 29.1 1.813 1.378 –0.435 24.0 
7. Midões (bg) 0.169 0.489 0.320 189.3 0.108 0.356 0.248 229.6 
8. Praia da Luz (bc) 0.331 0.566 0.235 71.0 1.776 1.079 –0.697 39.2 

SIP = sorbent-impregnated polyurethane; MB = mean bias; NME = normalized mean error; bg = background; ur = urban; bc = beach; in = industrial.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal